Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2003 06:48:26 +0100 Subject: Re: Einstein From: michaelP <michael-AT-sandwich-de-sign.co.uk> on 22/9/03 5:12 am, John Foster at borealis-AT-mercuryspeed.com wrote: > There is no > intuition of 'implicit order or wholeness' since the 'feeling' or > 'intuition' - if the later exists at all would have to correspond to an > object. John, wahtever the beliefs and faiths of scientists-qua-humans concerning the (judian) existence of objects corresponding to their concepts, the 'objects' of modern physics do not correspond to Judian objects at all; they are constructs that satisfy certain conditions of their unveiling, discovery (apparatuses, observational systems, instruments-as-Bachelardian-'materialised theories', etc); i.e., they are the sum of their revealed (through experiment, observation) effects (their trace vis-a-vis the measuring/observational equipments). I.e., they are relations (between the observer/observation gear and the observed mediated and even produced by the conditions of their presentation. Modern science-qua-science is not concerned with the description and prediction of alraedy given (data) 'things', 'objects' so much as with the production of concepts within an ever-changing ;mode of theoretic production'. Thus, if one were to attempt to think 'wholeness' (ta panta) in the modern scientific manner one would not have to 'look for' some 'object' to which it corresponds; instead, one could produce the concept of wholeness that could reveal itself under certain observational or experimental set-ups (apparatuses, etc) through its traces and interactions with the apparatuses, i.e., materially-theorised. Just a thought regards michaelP --- from list heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005